Posted
by
timothy
on Saturday June 02, 2012 @03:49PM
from the orwell-was-at-least-fiction dept.

An anonymous reader links this article describing a newly installed set of rules affecting the already put-upon Internet users of China, specifically affecting users of social network Sina Weibo: "Sina Weibo users each will now receive 80 points to begin with, and this can be boosted to a full 100 points by those who provide their official government-issued identification numbers (like Social Security numbers in the U.S.) and link to a cellphone account. Spreading falsehoods will lead to deductions in points, among other penalties. Spreading an untruth to 100 other users will result in a deduction of two points. Spreading it to 100-1,000 other users will result in a deduction of five points, as well as a week's suspension of the account. Spreading it to more than 1,000 other users will result in a deduction of 10 points, as well as a 15-day suspension of the account." The article explains (in truth, not very helpfully) the extent to which users' freedom to talk freely will be curtailed; the long list of what not to do "includes using 'nonconforming' or false images to mislead," "exaggerating events," "presenting already [resolved] events as ongoing," "efforts to incite ethnic tensions and violence and hurt ethnic unity" and "efforts to spread cultist or superstitious thinking; spreading rumors to disrupt social harmony." (And of course the catch-all: "other activities stipulated by authorities.")

Are you kidding. People use social network sites to mostly have fun. What is the point of adding in this kind of rating system when all you will do is make using the social network too much hard work and basically the only safe way to use it, is not to use it. People will simply shift to an easier to use social network.

I don't think you quite understand the point of my comment.
I generally find Weibo far more fun to use cause there is generally a lot less drama and whining going on there. Additionally they didn't bother to hide everything in a 20 layer menu structure like Facebook did. The result is rather easy to use. And frankly if I use a social network site I'm looking for a very specific set of services. I'm not interested in your revolutions, your whining, your political views,... . If you want to argue about that

Realize that obtaining objectivity is actually pretty hard. In America, entire cities of people would like to teach that man was created from dirt by a very anthropomorphic all-powerful being, and that the theory of evolution is a direct lie intended to mislead you to a pit of eternal fire. They are pretty angry at governmental regulations that forbid the teachings of what they think is "truth," and require the teaching of what they think is a lie. And yet, equally populous communities of scientifically

And yet, equally populous communities of scientifically enlightened Americans approve of this governmental regulation of truth, while simultaneously disapproving of the Chinese government doing the same thing.

That's a nice apology for Chinese-style censorship that tries to make all censorship equal. In the US you can still teach your kids the ancient Hebrew mythology, spread it online, or whatever. You just can't do it as part of public school because public funds are being used and there's the First Amendment which both forbids the latter while protecting the former: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

I almost wish you weren't kidding. There really would be a benefit of a general score of how valuable/useless certain people's comments are. Unfortunately to be most effective, this would require tracking people across sites.

Spreading of unfounded rumors of a coup in Beijing on Social media, means more restrictions will come into play. It was to be expected. After all, libel and other forms of lying are illegal in most of the world. So is attempting to incite rebellion illegal in just about every country in the world including China. Its obvious that the Chinese would do something about it eventually.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not Chinese. Hell I've never even been to the country.

Fact is, in the US for example,

18 USC 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

And to think, that makes the Arab Spring style of government change illegal in the US, even though the US supports such means in the ME, and tends to call the kettle black when it comes to China and their own internal censorship.

It also means spreading false rumors that the government is being over thrown to support and make people want to revolt, such as what happened in China illegal i

People who had never done anything else wrong, other then believed in the wrong political party, distributed information about their political ideology were deemed a threat and charged under this section of US law. Without violence or other physical harm being done. Read some history, it will do good for you.

No. This is the opposite of what is happening. China used to be more repressive than either the USSR or Germany ever was. Read up on the horrors of the Cultural Revolution or the Great Leap Forward. China has a long way to go to be as free as we are in the West, but they are heading in the right direction. This is just a little bump in the road.

That looks like a "last ditch" effort against those advocating violent overthrow. But as far as I can see, it hasn't been used since 1958 [wikipedia.org]. A large portion of the act that set it up seems to have been ruled unconstitutional too.

In any case, there's a MASSIVE difference between that and what China's attempting to do. One is a legal charge to be proven in court (under Common law, it's not disproven; the prosecution has to make the case that the accused violated the law, not the other way round), and the other is a measure of suppression. Further, if this is a reaction to the link you posted, the article only talks about news spreading about a rumored coup attempt, and not about anybody planning said alleged coup on microblogging sites.

What's the Chinese government worried about? That people knowing that a coup attempt is possible will then realize that their leaders are not infallible and that they can change the government? That they'll demand a real say in how things are done, and real democracy? Are they upset that anyone could legitimately not tow the party line? Cowards!

For comparison, here's how [hindustantimes.com] a democracy handles such allegations in the public. Keep in mind, this wasn't some random tweeters, but a real newspaper. The newspaper report was duly discredited, and life goes on.

Besides, movements like Occupy Wall Street, or India Against Corruption [wikipedia.org] or even the Tea Party are welcomed in mature nations - they form a conduit for people to express themselves on how they wish to be governed. Consent of the governed should be the only path to legitimacy for any rulers. Anything else is a dictatorship.

I said "Common Law" because that's what the US uses. Naturally, most civli law jurisdictions use it too.

Not really. Most Civil Law jurisdictions its on the defendant to prove he or she is not guilty, through the use of interpretation of the Law. Only in Common Law does it become a natural right. Even in Europe, until they ratified the UN Declaration of Human Rights, most of them, being Civil Law countries did not follow the thought of "Innocent till proven guilty".

And many of these countries that only really applies till the Prosecutor decides to charge you with something and go to court. So until you see a

You mean to say that the French or Germans don't have presumption of innocence?

I believe that they'd be rather [wikipedia.org] surprised to learn that! [wikipedia.org] In fact, it's even more explicit in the European Declaration of Human Rights than in the US constitution. Some places like Scotland have the "not proven" verdict. Incidentally, Scottish law is Civil, not Common. No sensible country, from what I can see, has codified presumption of guilt. This [bepress.com] rather long article goes into good detail on how the European system developed.

Stop apologizing for despots and their machinations of evil. You're a traitor to liberty; to your own self. The words you quoted are nothing more than tools used to enslave, and you yourself are a tool for spreading them.

Here's something more relevant:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

These words were written by those who were sick and tired of the very same slavery, and vowed to put an end to it.

Unfortunately their weak-kneed, pants pissing children and grandchildren let the tyranny creep back in, generation after generation, resulting in

That's what I like about/. - there's no censorship (or at least there wasn't until this flag button came along) and this allowed people to speak their mind. We may not like what others have to say but it's the only way to have any meaningful discussion.

Also, everyone should be able to sort bullshit from pertinent posts on their own in order to decide what to pay attention to and what to ignore (and if not, then these are skills that can be learned).

Censorship in China is illegal. Since it's illegal, it doesn't happen, so there is no need for a complaint mechanism. Amusing as that line of thinking (or not thinking) is, it isn't as bad as the Conservative government in Canada. Faced with criticism about it's environmental policies, it responded by taking away environmental organisations charitable status. Don't respond to criticism, wipe it out. Maybe that's why Prime Minister Harper refers to his jet as the Death Star.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. "Questioning the existence of the holocaust" should be something which is socially frowned upon, and should have some sort of repercussions, such as a mandatory visit to a Holocaust museum. I also don't see what's wrong with punishing "efforts to incite racial hatred and violence".

The problem is, it's nobody's business if I don't believe the Holocaust happened, and I should have the right to express my opinions. And once you start banning people from questioning facts, you create a mechanism where the government can "force" people to believe what the government wants them to.

Sure, right now this is used for good it seems - we just ban holocaust denialism. Now what happens if one day the government decided to ban creationism denialism? In theory it can happen, because when the governm

Depends on how you define "untruth". The way you or I would probably define it is "something that is not true", in which case, the question becomes "how do you (the sharer) know something to be 'true' before sharing?" or alternatively, "Do you, in good faith, believe that what you shared was true?"

The way the Chinese government seems to define it is, "Any statement that is critical of, or damaging to the reputation of the Communist Party and the Glorious People's Republic". In which case, why did you share

To avoid censorship (which the Party is attempting to be less ham-fisted with) the "political" comments with the most re-tweets have become more and more sideways. I'd expect the "rewards" system to have to wait until some re-tweet elevates, at which point everyone will be punished retrospectively who re-tweeted it. The evolution of Chinese commentary in social networks is really something.

There's a difference between somebody being a troll, and called out for it by other users, and the government retroactively proclaiming something "untrue", which knowing the CCP, would be loosely defined as "stuff we don't want you to say".

Answer, don't censor. Something that most governments, political parties, religious institutions, corporations, etc should have hammered into their heads!

Just try to do what somebody in power defines as:1. Deny the holocaust,2. Incite homophobia.3. Incite racial hatred.4. Display child pornography (where in some places e.g. Italy the "child" can mean a 17 years old).5. Denigrate the Moslem religion.6. Suggest that Homeland Security has been given too much power.

And in all those cases, truth or consent is NOT a defence!

And you will find yourself in jail, not just banned from posting for a month.

How very interesting. Which one of those do you have a problem with now, citizen? One moment while I write this down...</black humor>

The government having the power to regulate those kinds of speech is preferable to vigilantism. No, that's not a binary choice, but I for one feel strongly enough about certain of those topics to make quite a point of it, if you take my meaning. You can argue against your culture's values, and hope to change them, but on these topics it is important to note that people h

1. Discussing the issue within the framework set up by authority when it is the authority that needs changing is not usually workable. That's why rebellions start in the first place. Countries that make criminal offenses out of words that make certain people/groups feel bad have no business calling themselves free.

2. lobbying. well this is really an example of 1, right? Except of course you have to be wealthy, which 99% of us aren't, and those who are, are the ones using the government to their advantag

So when the "others" being incited against are government agents it is acceptable to disregard the principles upon which we have built our society? Your "love it or leave it" simplifies my statement to the point of absurdity. If you do not like your society, you must act to change it or change your locality -- either is acceptable. It is an obvious statement, if you're not inclined towards willful misinterpretation.

Your statements only follow each other sequentially, not logically. Please try again. On the

So when the "others" being incited against are government agents it is acceptable to disregard the principles upon which we have built our society?

That's just it. This only happens when the officials disregard these principles first, in ways egregious or hypocritical enough to piss people off. if, in a democracy, a lot of people are ready to go from the ballot box to the ammo box, the government has failed and has been failing for a long time. I realize china isn't a democracy, but perhaps that's part of the problem.

[c] or move to someplace where your views are tolerated.

You said 'love it or leave it'. It's quite unambiguous.

but you should seek to demonstrate that there is greater harm in restricting the individual freedom of speech than restricting the freedom to seek harm to members of your own society.

Ok, when the law allows lots of/powerful/influential people to dictate what the

And yet your quoted selection somehow manages to be the third of a list of alternatives, and neither of the first two are "Mindlessly repeat the majority position." Slandering my argument does not improve your position.

This only happens when the officials disregard [...]

False. People have been arguing against governments since their inception.

if, in a democracy, a lot of people are ready to go from the ballot box to the ammo box, the government has failed and has been failing for a long time.

False. Red herring.

Ok, when the law allows lots of/powerful/influential people to dictate what the minority can say, it quickly becomes a form of tyranny.

Don't powerful minorities usually dictate terms in tyrannies? An attempt to regulate speech does not necessarily require a majority or minority, and tyranny is not an automatic consequence.

Without the right to communicate unambiguously, it's impossible for grievances to be heard except couched in whatever newspeak terms the power elite allow.

In childrearing, my philosophy was let them do anything they wanted, with the limitation that "only so long as it is not too much trouble to keep a watch that they don't kill themselves" (or someone else).

" Is there no line that can be crossed between holding an opinion and seeking harm to others?" I think the line is the infringement of the other's liberty.

From "The Rights of Man" 1789. Article IV "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the nat

points1. Not crime to deny holocaust in Anglosphere. conceded.2 & 3. Rather a fine legal point there between inciting "hate" and "violence". Not conceded.4. That is a cultural question. Not conceded.5. Good lawyers in the US can cite (is it the first?) amendment. But In my country (AU) you better have the capacity to fight. Partly conceded.6. But what is HS doing closing down wikileaks and copyright websites? And don't people get into trouble at airports? Reckon it's happening but we don't get

2 & 3. Rather a fine legal point there between inciting "hate" and "violence". Not conceded.

Not so very fine; saying "I hate X" is different from saying "Kill X". Naturally, there's a grey area that's handled case-by-case.

4. That is a cultural question. Not conceded.

How so? A minor can't give consent. And it's generally a pretty despicable activity that harms the child concerned anyway. This is similar to incitement to violence. Your rights end where others' rights begin.

5. Good lawyers in the US can cite (is it the first?) amendment. But In my country (AU) you better have the capacity to fight. Partly conceded.

Not sure of Australia, but I'm yet to hear of anyone going to jail (that being your whole accusation) for that...

6. But what is HS doing closing down wikileaks and copyright websites? And don't people get into trouble at airports? Reckon it's happening but we don't get to hear of it. not conceded.

Going back to point 1. The Germans are, of course, devolved Anglosphere.2&3 Lets leave it as a grey area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derryn_Hinch#Sexual_Relationship_With_Underage_Girl [wikipedia.org] This radio commenter was jailed for (ultimately) the "hate crime" of publicly identifying a pederast.4. In some cultures (Aboriginal Australian, even 50 years ago) children under 6 or so ran around in public, naked. Look in National Geographic a few decades ago. Finding something to be "pornographic" is largely cul

So I take it that those users who do NOT "provide their official government-issued identification numbers... and link to a cellphone account..." will suffer greatly by having to sign up for another fake account every single time they run out of points... Gosh, that's harsh.